But I didn’t realize one critical way that the Democrat Party is the party of slavery until something occurred to me while I watched that program on Antietam.

The thing that occurred to me is the question, “What would happen if we were fighting the Civil War today, suffering those terrible casualties?”

And there is a crystal-clear, unmistakable answer: liberals would demand peace, and end to the war. They would demand we stop the fighting and withdraw, suspend combat operations, cut-and-run. It is who they are.

Okay, fine. Great for Democrats. They can claim to be the party that brought us an end to war.

But what would that have meant? Well, it would have guaranteed that the institution of human slavery would remain intact. Because the only way the Confederate States of America was EVER going to give up slavery is if they were FORCED to by strong men who were willing to take a stand and fight.

This is a president who denied that there was a “war on terror” or for that matter any “war” at all; he played rhetorical word-games and created PC phrases like “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disasters” to masquerade the truth while Islamic State grew and grew and grew into a powerful monster.

And so, thanks to Obama and to every single Democrat being a coward and a liar, we have SLAVERY. And slavery of the very worst and very most vile sort.

THIS is the real picture of the “war on women” today. And it is ENTIRELY due to the Democrat Party:

Because to be a Democrat is to “hate war” and therefore to love the consequences of withdrawing from wars we desperately need to fight to prevent far greater evils.

So, yes, it really doesn’t matter how you slice it: if you are a Democrat, you stand for slavery and you always HAVE stood for slavery.

I watched the Fox News program called “The Five” last night, and the discussion turned to the Alabama immigration law.

Obnoxious and vile liberal Bob Beckel called it “the Bull Connor law.” I don’t have the transcript of his remark, but it’s a leftwing talking point, so I don’t need it.

There’s only one problem with that: Bull Connor was a Democrat. He started his career as a Democrat and he ended it as a Democrat.

Google the Wikipedia article on the slimebag. Copy and paste it into a text file and then search for the word “Republican.” You’ll get the message box “Cannot find Republican.” Because Bull Connor WASN’T a Republican.

Try that with “Democrat” and THAT word comes up repeatedly.

In the same way, Republicans invariably get tainted with “slavery.” It doesn’t matter that the Republican Party had an abolitionist platform, or that the DEMOCRAT Party was the pro-slavery Party. Those are “facts,” and Democrats hate facts with a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy that has to be seen to be believed.

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.

It doesn’t matter that:

“the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan … provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.”

It never ceases to amaze me that the most vile things Democrats can accuse Republicans of … all actually come from Democrats. It amounts to Democrats shouting at us, “You are such a vile piece of cockroach crap that you’re a DEMOCRAT!!!”

Again, Republicans, according to Democrats, are so evil, so vile, so despicable that they are SOCIALISTS.

Democrats live in a world of lies. St. Paul could have used the word “Democrats” in 2 Corinthians 4:4 where he wrote, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

It’s not only Jesus Christ or biblical morality Democrats are blind to, it is truth, reason and history.

“Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma. They end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs when, if you, they just gave, you gave, treatment early, and they got some treatment, and uhhh a breathalyzer, or uhh, an inhalator, not a breathalyzer…”

Now, I see those, and I’m supposed to think that liberals are right for believing that Michelle Bachmann is too stupid (or what’s that word? Flaky?) to be President of the United States because she mistook John Wayne – who was born in Winterset Iowa – with John Wayne Gacy – who was born in Waterloo Iowa?

But you consider the mainstream media that pretty much glossed over ALL of that, and then suddenly making Michelle Bachmann’s gaffe about John Wayne Gacy the absolute CENTERPIECE of their questioning of her, and you realize that there are two Americas out there – the one the liberal mainstream media propagandists hate and the one the liberal mainstream media propagandists love.

Unlike Barack Obama, Michelle Bachmann doesn’t take a teleprompter every damn where she goes. Unlike Barack Obama, Michelle Bachmann isn’t a hand puppet reading a script. And unlike Barack Obama, most of Michelle Bachmann’s gaffes have nothing whatsoever to do with governing the nation.

If you believe that Michelle Bachmann isn’t fit to be president because of gaffes, and you aren’t loudly demanding that Barack Obama resign from office for crimes against intelligence, than you are a hypocrite and a fool.

The founding fathers did NOT want slavery; but they were in the impossible position where they either allowed it or did not have a nation. There was simply no way the pro-slavery states were going to give up slavery in 1787. What the founding fathers did was compromise in such a way while writing our nations Constitution and laws in such a way that it was merely a matter of time before slavery would necessarily have to be abolished.

Take the three-fifths compromise that liberals often dump on to dump on America. First of all the compromise had nothing whatosever to do with the ontology or humanity of black persons; it was completely directed at the extent of representation that slaves would have politically in determining the number of representatives and the distribution of taxes. Second, which side wanted the slaves to have full representation? THE SLAVERY SIDE. The anti-slavery side wanted slaves to be accorded no representation at all, because counting them meant the slavery states would have more power and more money and therefore be able to resist demands to end slavery forever.

It was the pro-slavery side that demanded FULL representation. In other words, Democrats – who demanded to hold on to slavery during the Civil War – CONTINUE to support the pro-slavery side even 225 years later!

Just to point out one more fact about the three-fifths compromise, one of the agreements reached was an END to the transatlantic slavery trade after twenty years. Apparently, Democrats have always wanted that trade to continue.

The media is just crossing out “Sarah Palin’s” name and scrawling in “Michelle Bachmann’s” name. Because they’re cockroaches. A recent attack on Michelle Bachmann was to call her “Barbie with fangs.” Because liberal “journalists” can hate on women as much as they want to knowing they have a Holy Warrior’s Absolution from the so-called “feminist groups” to do so.

This appears to be an argument that no amount of sanity or reason can possibly win. Because it doesn’t matter how fairly you treat a black person, or how much you pay them, you are simply defined in terms of being on the wrong side of slavery.

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson made some controversial comments about the NFL labor situation in an interview with Doug Farrar of Yahoo’s Shutdown Corner. The interview was conducted just before the NFLPA decertified.

“It’s modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money,” Peterson continued. “The owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money.”

When asked about the owners not showing their financial information, Peterson suggested that they are hiding something.

“Well, show us.’ We want more information, and they want to bull****, going around, saying this and that, just open it up and give us the information we want. If they have nothing to hide, just give us the information,” the 25-year-old said. “Why not? Obviously, there’s a lot to hide — these guys are professionals, and they’re maximizing what they do.”

This is a mindset that is so committed to an ideology of victimization that it becomes incapable of any form of personal self-introspection whatsoever. It is immune to fact, to logic, to criticism or to the fact that it is quintessentially hypocritical.

What you end up with is people with giant chips on their shoulders and chutzpah the size of Jupiter.

I have no idea how many black people think the way Adrian Peterson thinks (i.e., that life is one big entitlement and that they can invoke the ghost of slavery to get what they want whenever they want it).

I have had the honor of knowing a few black people who were very, very elderly (in one case over a hundred years old!). And I heard them tell their stories. The thing was, I knew the eras they had lived through; and I knew from their stories where they had lived (e.g., Mississippi). So I knew as they told their stories that they had without any question suffered real racism.

The kind of racism that an Adrian Peterson has never begun to experience in his entire self-centered, self-absorbed life.

And the thing that most impressed me as I heard these several stories from these great elderly black men was how sweet they were. There was no bitterness in their souls, because they had always sought the best in people, and found it often. Even in white people. And when (not if) they were abused by one white person, they chose instead to focus on the kindness and graciousness of another white person instead. And they were the kind of people who made the best of their world, and enjoyed their lives, and fixated on what was good and kind and decent instead of what was hateful and bigoted and cruel.

Another thing that characterized them was their sense of personal responsibility and drive. They didn’t wait around for handouts, because they knew there wouldn’t be any handouts.

ROGULSKI:Why are you here?
Woman: To get some money.
ROGULSKI: What kind of Money?
Woman: Obama money.
ROGULSKI: Where’s it comin’ from?
Woman: Obama.
ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it from?
WOMAN: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. I don’t know where he got it from, but he’s givin’ it to us. And we love him. That’s why we voted for him. O-ba-ma. O-ba-ma.

DAYTON — The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.

It’s a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam.

Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees. The hiring process was postponed for months because the D.O.J. rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test.

Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two.

The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%. That’s the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.

“It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community,” said Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane. “It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation.”

“The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed,” agreed Dayton NAACP President Derrick Foward.

Something has happened to the black community at large. And it isn’t good.

Many black people in America today are the descendants of slaves. Those slaves were involuntarily forced into their slavery, and dreamed of freedom for themselves and for their children. And yet today, their descendents have to a shocking degree and extent willingly placed themselves in the relationship of dependents waiting for their handouts. I quote myself:

But at some point, the Democrat Party began to morph into the party of the immediate post-civil war reconstruction, when elitist whites decided that ignorant, inferior blacks couldn’t do anything for themselves. They needed whites to lead them.

“I believe a lot of this goes back to when black Americans accepted this liberal premiss that we’re not accountable for anything; that because we’re descendants from slaves, that you know, ‘it’s OK, it’s not your fault, you’re a victim’ – and they’ve created this sort of pool… you know it’s not just a physical ghetto I’m talking about but a mental, sort of barrier.

“Where, you see, OK Michael Vick is a victim of the justice system, not a person who committed a crime. That mentality is pervasive. You see it over and over, and it’s fed to us and it’s fed to us, and it’s fed to us – and we accept it. We take it.

“And at the end of the day what we’re getting for it: we wait for our welfare checks. We wait for it – people wait for it like ‘I wait for my check,’ like it’s something I worked for. And it has taken away everything; everything that God gave us innately – you know, when you put two people on an island they’re going to have certain things innately; they’re going to have the desire to survive, to thrive, to do better – all that is suppressed in our community. And what’s left is this sort of squalor.”

I don’t doubt that I’m going to get called a “racist” for writing this piece. I’m fine with that, because I know my own heart, and the hateful opinions of bitter, malicious race-bating demagogues doesn’t mean squat to me. I want to see black people lift themselves up and get respect because they EARNED respect.

Under Obama, we have seen a shocking failure in the ability of government to take care of the poor. Which means that the poor had damn well better learn to start taking care of themselves. But I have literally come to believe that black leaders want their people to be totally unprepared to take care of themselves 1) so they continue to be slavishly dependent on these selfsame failed leaders; and 2) so that when their black community begins to suffer the fruits of generations of stupid and immoral decisions from their failed leaders, they can decry how evil “conservative” “whitey” is and demagogue their way to continued power.

But instead of trying to do that, we just hear more and more demands from the left for the rich to have their wealth seized by the government and redistributed to the poor.

There’s a massive problem with that – especially for black liberals who decry slavery. I write about this despicable hypocrisy in an article titled “Obama’s Government As God Believes It Owns Everything The People Earn.” Basically that problem is that, in order to maintain this belief, one has to believe that the government very literally owns everything that its citizens earn or build, and then allows its citizens to keep some of that wealth and seizes the rest to give it away to others who did not earn it. Which is to say that you have a shocking number of black people saying today that the government de facto owns people and owns their labor and owns the fruit of that labor. And ought to be able to take it away from the producers as it wills in order to hand it out to someone else.

And for all that millionaire Adrian Peterson decries the NFL that made him a rich man, THAT is what slavery is.

About 13% of American citizens are black, according to the census data. That is a large enough number that this country cannot succeed if African-Americans are anchors weighing us down rather than angels lifting us up. But they have been anchors for a generation, and seem determined to continue to be anchors. When 13% of the population is determined that the other 87% owes them something, and when you have one of the two major political parties cynically demagoguing that bitterness – the result is bad for everyone.

I myself am a disabled veteran. And for a while I had the idea that everyone owed me for my sacrifice. I was particularly bitter that my disability had significantly worsened due to inadequate treatment. One day I realized that I could continue to keep thinking that way, and continue to wait for someone else to give me what I thought I deserved, or I could actually take personal responsibility for myself and improve my own lot in life. Fortunately, I chose the latter path for myself. But that is a reckoning that the black community will tragically never have as long as they listen to the demagogues in their communities and in the Democrat Party.

Last night in front of an audience of hundreds at a presentation at the University of Southern California, TV personality Bill Nye — popularly known as the “Science Guy” — collapsed midsentence as he walked toward a podium. Early indications are that Nye is OK, but what’s odd about the incident isn’t so much Nye’s slight health setback as the crowd’s reaction. Or, more precisely, its nonreaction, according to several accounts.

It appears that the students in attendance, rather than getting up from their seats to rush to Nye’s aid, instead pulled out their mobile devices to post information about Nye’s loss of consciousness.

Alastair Fairbanks, a USC senior in attendance for Nye’s presentation, told the Los Angeles Times that “nobody went to his aid at the very beginning when he first collapsed — that just perplexed me beyond reason.” The student added, “Instead, I saw students texting and updating their Twitter statuses. It was just all a very bizarre evening.”

Indeed, a cursory search on Twitter revealed a virtual play-by-play account of the incident. One student wrote, “Bill Nye tripped on his computer cord while speaking at USC, was out for abt 5 secs, got back up, spoke w/ slurred speech and fainted.”

According to the school’s student news outlet, the Daily Trojan, Nye asked, “What happened? How long was I out?” when he regained consciousness. Briskly picking up his humorous persona, he added, “Wow, that was crazy. I feel like Lady Gaga or something.” Nye’s publicity team didn’t immediately respond to The Lookout’s request for comment on the episode.

Still, in the annals of the digital public’s civic indifference, the Nye incident is nowhere near as disturbing as another episode reported in New Orleans earlier this week, which oddly enough also involved a humorist. Anthony Barre, a New Orleans man popular for his acid-tongued comic performances on YouTube using the handle “Messy Mya,” was murdered on the streets of the city’s 7th Ward — the historically Creole neighborhood chronicled in the HBO series “Treme.” As he lay dying, witnesses at the scene took to the Internet to chronicle the tragedy in real time, even posting photos of his body lying in a pool of blood.

Moments after gunshots roared through the 7th Ward on Sunday night, a lone snapshot appeared on the Internet.

In it, a 22-year-old man is lying cheek to the ground, crimson pooling around his neck. His eyes are closed, his torso curled.

Chaos explodes around him, with the arms of others pressed to the back of his head. And someone is holding a cell phone just inches from his face.

This is how the world learned of Messy Mya’s death.

Prior to this week’s episodes, perhaps the best-known incident of youthful digital passivity in the face of danger was the September 2007 tasing of University of Florida student Andrew Meyer at a speech delivered by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry. That episode immortalized the expression “Don’t tase me, bro!” The crowd of onlookers trying to capture the encounter on their cellphone cameras later prompted Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert to imagine the internal monologue of a bored-looking kid seated next to Meyer thusly: “He’s thinking, ‘I wish they’d stop tasing this guy, so I can get home and watch him being tased on YouTube.’ “

There’s a line of dialogue I remember from a movie called “Wild Bill” as the two characters entered a sleazy town:

“But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these” (Saint Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:1-5).

And dang, doesn’t texting and tweeting and video cameras ever bring to life the “malicious gossips” section of this prophetic passage?

I can’t even imagine a man collapsing in front of me and not rushing over to try to help him. So imagine how unimaginable it must be for me to imagine a huge crowd of people texting and twittering while a man falls down and lies unconscious on a stage.

A week ago I had a VA (Veterans Administration) appointment. A man in a wheelchair was trying to get through a door that shut on him. Ten of us immediately got up from our seats to help him.

But that was a far, FAR better generation than “the last days” group we’ve got now. It makes me nauseous to think about these effete, sanctimonious, sycophantic, self-righteous snobs.

These are the punks who voted for Obama in such huge numbers in 2008. They’re the ones who lecture us about the environment and taxes and gay marriage and abortion and illegal immigration and ObamaCare and big government and all the other politically correct crap.

On the tape, Gore states: “When I was your age and the civil rights revolution was unfolding, and we kids asked our parents and their generation, ‘Explain to me again why it’s okay for the law to officially discriminate against people because of their skin color?’

“And when our parents’ generation couldn’t answer that question, that’s when the law started to change. There are some things about our world that you know that older people don’t know,” he continued.

“Why would that be? Well in a period of rapid change, the old assumptions sometimes just don’t work anymore because they’re out of date,” Gore said.

And the only reason “the old assumptions” are “out of date” these days is because demonic rat bastard moralizing panderers like Al Gore have become the teachers of this terminal generation. And the same people who constantly congratulate themselves on just how wonderful they are don’t even deserve to be called “pathetic.”

It was the late 1980s, and I experienced something that will probably puzzle me for the rest of my life on this earth.

I had ordered “Blazer Cable” so that I could see the Portland Trailblazer home games. And in order to help pay for it – and to make it more fun to watch – I got a few friends to go in on it with me.

One night, one of my friends brought one of his friends over on a night when the Blazers were playing the Chicago Bulls. I thought the guy had some faulty wiring from about the moment I met him, but, what they hey.

In any event, to get to the point, at some point during the game my friend’s friend was sitting on the couch alone with me (everybody else was either in the kitchen or in the bathroom, as it was halftime). They were interviewing Michael Jordan. And he looked over at me and said, “Would you trade places with Michael Jordan?”

This was like the stupidest questions I had ever heard, and I’ve heard quite a few stupid questions.

“Of course I would,” I said. I mean, duh. Michael Jordan was strikingly handsome, he was filthy rich, he was incredibly successful, and he was one of the best athletes in the history of the human race. And I wouldn’t want to trade places with him why, exactly?

Well, yeah. I waited to hear the cross-eyed albino boy start playing a banjo.

At the time, I was too astonished to be angry at the guy. It was like encountering someone who – in spite of massive evidence to the contrary – believed he was invisible to the human eye.

I’ve thought about that few second encounter a number of times since. It still amazes me to this very day. How can somebody possibly get that stupid?

In the years before that moment, and since then, I had known some black men who were total turds. And I have known some black men whom I regarded as having superior character to my own.

Lumping people into racial groups and then judging people on the basis of the color of their skin is every bit as stupid as not wanting to change places with Michael Jordan simply “because he’s black.” But I see it being done all the time these days. By the left.

I was raised to regard character, intelligence, virtue, attitude and attractiveness of personality as the qualities that determined the value of a person. It had never even occurred to me to think that the color of one’s skin made on more or less valuable.

I was also raised to want to continue to improve myself. I was raised to want to become a better human being, to improve my station in, and my quality of, life.

I think that’s why I react so viscerally to the racial attitude inherent in modern liberalism. To pit people against each other on the basis of color and bigotry, and to label white people as being evil and somehow complicit in some kind of white power structure is bad enough. But it goes beyond that.

It’s self-taught, self-limiting perpetual victimhood. It’s providing a class of people with a ready-made excuse for failure; it’s discouraging them from even really bothering to try, and rewarding them for not trying; it’s an evil exchange in which one accepts all kinds of control over their lives in exchange for destructive and cancerous welfare; it’s wallowing in an attitude of bitterness and even self-loathing that dooms one to a life of misery. It is a guaranteed perpetuation of failure.

It is a completely alien worldview to me. Every bit as much as that idiot who wouldn’t trade places with Michael Jordan “because he’s black.”

I made the earlier comment that I’ve met black men whom I regarded as being superior to me in the thing that I value most – character. They were examples to me, and as a result of their friendship, I became a better person. I’ve also known a number of white men whose superior character helped me advance in my own life. The point is that you desire excellence, and you take it wherever you can find it.

I have a feeling that Pastor C.L. Bryant would be one of those men, were I fortunate enough to know him.

Comedian Eddie Murphy once joked that Lincoln forgot to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, and that people should go out and claim their slaves. I’m here to tell you that the Democratic Party took that request seriously and have claimed their slaves.
When 98 percent of African-Americans vote Democrat, that tells me that they are psychological and economic slaves to a Party that structures its fiscal policy to keep the black man down.

Welfare policy, government-forced affirmative action, reduced testing requirements for minorities…these are all things that don’t serve to elevate people to greatness, rather, they keep people down.

This video is a movie trailer about a man who proposes that these slaves to the liberals run away from the slave plantation that liberals have created. Its creator, Pastor C.L. Bryant, holds an honest discussion about black conservatives in America. Quote the man, “Run away from the slavery of tyranny toward the blessings of liberty!” Check it out:

David Horowitz rightly calls African-Americans “the human shields of the Democrat Party.” It simply a fact of history that modern African-Americans have come hat-in-hand to the Party of Slavery, and the Party of the Ku Klux Klan.

“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life” (Foner 1989, p. 425–426).

Let us never forget that Democrats were the party of slavery. And that Democrats were the creators of the Ku Klux Klan. It literally took a war in which Democrats had to be militarily crushed to keep them from enslaving people based on the color of their skin. And thank God for the Republican Party and a Republican president for freeing the slaves from Democrats. Let’s not forget that Woodrow Wilson – Democrat president and the father of the progressive movement – RE-segregated the military after Republicans had DE-segregated it. Let us not forget that Wilson cheered the racist propaganda film “Birth of a Nation.” Let us never forget that the national party convention that was so directly tied to the Ku Klux Klan that it was called the “Klanbake” was the 1924 DEMOCRAT convention. Let’s not forget that FDR’s New Deal directly attacked blacks and kept them from getting jobs.

As we move into the 1950s we find that a Democrat Governor, Orval Faubus, called out the National Guard in 1957 to prevent black children being integrated into white schools. And again, a Republican president had to rise to the occasion, with Dwight D. Eisenhower sending in US Army airborne troops to enforce racial equality that had once again been opposed by Democrats. And of course Alabama Democrat Governor George Wallace would fight for racist segregation all over again in 1963. It was Democrat John F. Kennedy who sent in the troops this time. But few are aware that that same John Kennedy had previously voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act.

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”77 On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

So now conservatives are suddenly racists for agreeing with Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King, Jr. and against liberals and the vile pseudo values that the greatest civil rights leaders in history condemned?

Richard Nixon, whom Democrats love to make the poster boy for “Republican racism,” was in fact the first president to introduce the racial quotas that Democrats have been trying to implement and expand ever since. Which is to say that, if you want to argue that Nixon was a racist, Democrats have been baptizing themselves in Nixon’s racism ever since. And if Nixon employed a racially immoral strategy to win whites, the Democrat Party has employed the flip-side of that same immoral strategy to win blacks.

Liberals are biblical – and never in a good way:

PSA 52:3 You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right.
MIC 3:2 “You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones

There are men and women of basic virtue in every race, and even every creed. The problem is that there are fewer and fewer of these, while the men and women of apathy, degeneration and self-centeredness abound.

Slavery is a terrible thing. But it is even worse when one willingly applies the shackles to his or her own wrists and ankles and demands the right to a government-imposed easy way out, in pathetic contrast to the principle from an Aesop fable, “Better to starve free than be a fat slave.”

From the family photo album: you can call it “Obama with his uncle,” or “Obama with his spiritual mentor,” or “Obama with his pastor for more than 20 years.” I prefer to title it, “Racist-in-Chief Poses With His Guru.”

No human being of principle or virtue would have spent 20 seconds in Jeremiah Wright’s demonic cesspool. Barack Obama spent 20 years there. He asked Jeremiah Wright to marry him to Michelle. He raised his children under this evil man.

CHICAGO — He’s been keeping such a low profile since nearly derailing Barack Obama’s campaign for president in 2008 — is it possible that the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright has mellowed?

Hardly.

During a five-day seminar Wright taught last week in Chicago, he was back at it, claiming that whites and Jews are controlling the flow of worldwide information and oppressing blacks in Israel and America.

“White folk done took this country,” Wright said. “You’re in their home, and they’re gonna let you know it.”

The course, advertised as focusing on politics and public policy in South Africa and America, was taught in a small, ground-floor room at the Chicago Theological Seminary, where Wright’s voice echoed out an open window. The class was composed of about 15 to 20 students, mainly older African-American women who would arrive early and giddily linger during lunch breaks and after class, looking for the reverend’s attention. (The course cost a little over $1,000 if taken for college credit and $300 if taken without.)

The absence of young people was telling: The lectures seemed ossified, relics of a pre-civil-rights America — a point that Obama himself made during his famous speech on race in March 2008, prompted by the incendiary comments (“God damn America!”) made by his former pastor and mentor.

“Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect,” Obama said.

Yet during this course — which was described as asking, “What is the response and public witness of persons of faith to ongoing developments in both countries?” — Wright made many statements about what he believes are the true aims of whites and Jews.

“You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk,” he said. “And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble.”

He cited the writings of Bill Jones — author of the book “Is God a White Racist?” — as proof that white people cannot be trusted. “Bill said, ‘They just killed four of their own at Kent State. They’ll step on you like a cockroach and keep on movin’, cause you not a brother to them.’ ”

Wright referred to Italians as “Mamma Luigi” and “pizzeria.” He said the educational system in America is designed by whites to miseducate blacks “not by benign neglect but by malignant intent.”

He said Ethiopian Jews are despised by white Jews: “And now the Knesset [Israeli parliament] is meeting with European Jews, voting on whether or not these African Jews can get into [Israel].”

The civil-rights movement, Wright said, was never about racial equality: “It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.” Martin Luther King, he said, was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, “born in the oven of America.”

“We probably have more African-Americans who’ve been brainwashed than we have South Africans who’ve been brainwashed,” he said, and seemed to allude to President Obama twice: “Unfortunately, I got in trouble with a fella for saying this . . . All your commentaries are written by oppressors.” At the mention of Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan — whom Obama disavowed during the campaign — black leaders “go cuttin’ and duckin’,” he said.
In March, Wright told The Washington Post that he expects to speak to Obama again, when “he is out of the White House.” Last June, he told a Virginia newspaper that the only reason he and the president were not speaking at the moment is that “them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me.”

From 1972 until May 2008, Wright served as pastor of Trinity United Church of Chicago, located in a rough area of the city’s South Side. Today, he is “pastor emeritus” and identified as such on the rugs that line the doorways at Trinity.

Until very recently, Wright lived with his wife and children in a nearby two-story house, in a more affluent subdivision surrounded by roadblocks; the line between rich and poor is literal. His former neighbors all say he kept to himself.

A few months ago, Wright and his family moved into a brand-new million-dollar home located near a golf course and made of stone with a recessed doorway surrounded by pillars. It’s the only house on a cul-de-sac. Records show it was sold by Trinity United Church to a company called ATG Trust and paid for in cash.

Since leaving Trinity, Wright has traveled the country, preaching and lecturing. He said he’s been working “all year long” with Trinity’s preschool program and called US Education Secretary Arne Duncan a disaster. Duncan, a former college basketball star, was given the job only because Obama enjoys his “good jump shot in the back yard,” Wright said.

Wright gives interviews intermittently but declined to speak to The Post. He recently headlined a two-day “men’s empowerment revival” in Florida but in mixed company is careful not to say anything racist or inflammatory.

The most he had to say about the African-American experience that day was “God is working on your behalf.”

You look at the anti-Semitic race hatred of Barack Obama, as epitomized in the words of his mentor and spiritual leader for over 20 years, and then you have this result in Obama’s policy:

Briefing officials at the foreign ministry last week, ambassador Michael Oren described the state of ties between Israel and its closest ally as worse than a crisis, something akin to that of two continents drifting apart.

According to one diplomat quoted by the Haaretz daily, Oren used bleak terms to explain the changes which have taken place under the administration of US President Barack Obama.

“Relations are in the state of a tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart,” Oren was quoted as saying by the diplomat.

Another diplomat who spoke to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily said there had been an historic change in Washington’s approach to Israel.

“There is no crisis in Israel-US relations because in a crisis there are ups and downs,” he quoted Oren as saying.

Both papers quoted Oren as attributing the shift in sentiment to “interests and cold considerations” by Obama who did not have the same historical-ideological bent towards Israel as his predecessors.

We’ve got a crystal clear trend emerging from Jeremiah Wright to the coldest and most hostile relationship with Israel in the history of US-Israeli relations consisting of both Democrat and Republican administrations.

Obama promised he would transcend racial and political divides. He lied.

Liberals looked at Obama and saw nothing but whatever the lying rhetoric of the moment was, but this is what I saw: Barack Obama’s “value system” from his church of 23 years:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
I would have similarly boldfaced the word “white,” but alas, it never managed to appear as a group that Obama’s church of 23 years gave a damn about. No Asians, Indians, Arabs, etc either, I couldn’t help but notice.

Black civil right leaders of today despise the movement that registered Republican Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned. They pay lip service to it, of course, because they have to, but in their heart of hearts, it’s all about “becoming white” to them.

Men like this talk about racism, when they themselves are racist to their very cores.

Let us never forget that Democrats were the party of slavery. And that Democrats were the creators of the Ku Klux Klan. It literally took a war in which Democrats had to be militarily crushed to keep them from enslaving people based on the color of their skin. And thank God for the Republican Party and a Republican president for freeing the slaves from Democrats. Let’s not forget that Woodrow Wilson – Democrat president and the father of the progressive movement – RE-segregated the military after Republicans had DE-segregated it. Let us not forget that Wilson cheered the racist propaganda film “Birth of a Nation.” Let us never forget that the national party convention that was so directly tied to the Ku Klux Klan that it was called the “Klanbake” was the 1924 DEMOCRAT convention. Let’s not forget that FDR’s New Deal directly attacked blacks and kept them from getting jobs.

As we move into the 1950s we find that a Democrat Governor, Orval Faubus, called out the National Guard in 1957 to prevent black children being integrated into white schools. And again, a Republican president had to rise to the occasion, with Dwight D. Eisenhower sending in US Army airborne troops to enforce racial equality that had once again been opposed by Democrats. And of course Alabama Democrat Governor George Wallace would fight for racist segregation all over again in 1963. It was Democrat John F. Kennedy who sent in the troops this time. But that same John Kennedy had previously voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act.

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”77 On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

So now conservatives are suddenly racists for agreeing with Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King, Jr. and against liberals and the vile pseudo values that the greatest civil rights leaders in history condemned?

Barack Obama chose as his spiritual mentor a man who is every bit as racist as any Exalted Cyclops or Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. You don’t willingly place yourself in the hard-core racist environment of a Jeremiah Wright unless you are pretty damn racist yourself.

The Democrat Senate Majority Leader had this to say about the Democrats’ health care agenda and its relationship with wanting to own slaves:

“All Republicans can come up with is this: Slow down, stop everything and start over. If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right,” Reid said on the Senate floor Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it is too early, let’s wait. Things are not bad enough.’ “

As Republicans erupted into outrage at the ugly and utterly despicable tactic – and presumably after Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called on Reid to apologize for his “disgraceful statement” – Harry Reid spake again through his spokesman:

“Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy to distract from the fact they have no plan to lower the cost of health care, stop insurance company abuses or protect Medicare.”

“All Democrats can come up with is this: tell lies, make stuff up and use deception to make the cost of their bills look different than it really is. If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of child molestation, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, buggering little boys is fine, it’s discrimination to go after them. Things are not bad enough.’ “

And if Democrats become outraged at being compared to being a bunch of child molesters over their takeover of the health care system, I’ll just trot back out and say:

“Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy.”

Because, after all, when I slander you with the most hateful demagoguery, how DARE you respond in outrage?

I tell you what: Joseph Goebbels is just so freaking happy listening to Harry Reid from his special place in hell. Every demagogue in history has got to be dancing.

If I really wanted to continue with the Democrat tactics, I would make sure that everyone knew that this was hate speech that would incite black people to begin murdering Republicans. And the moment I found any registered Republican killed by a black guy, I would immediately cite the event and decry Harry Reid as a blood-faced murderer.

Harry Reid wants to talk about slavery. So let’s talk about slavery. Democrats fought the bloodiest war in American history to keep blacks in bondage; Republicans under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln won the emancipation of black slaves at the cost of their own lives and limbs.

During the 1860 presidential election, Democrat candidate Stephen Douglas supported the doctrine of popular sovereignty: allowing settlers in each territory to decide for themselves whether abortion – oops, I mean slavery – would be allowed.

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

The above-cited article entitled, “The Democrat Race Lie,” goes on with numerous entries detailing well over a century of Democrat opposition to racial equality, to match their support of the institution of slavery.

So in other words, Harry Reid is accusing Republicans of being so vile, so hateful, so ugly, so despicable, so depraved, so morally evil, that they have become like Democrats.

And those are fighting words. Because as bad as Republicans are, there’s no way they are THAT loathsome.

After the Civil War, the Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan as a violent terrorist organization which

So you can understand why I would be deeply offended and appalled that Harry Reid would say that I’m such a nasty piece of work as a Republican that I’m somehow like a Democrat in wanting to continue slavery.

Let’s move ahead to 1924, to see how the Ku Klux Klan still owned the Democrat Party:

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, it was the Democrats who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protestors were fighting. Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham let loose dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. In 1963, Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse chanting, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”. In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools (using the 101st airborne), and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education (which ended school segregation). Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960.

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Conveniently forgotten today are significant facts about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law guaranteed equal access to public facilities and banned discrimination by any establishment receiving federal government funding. The law was an update of Republican Charles Sumner’s 1875 Civil Rights Act which had been stuck down by the Democrat-controlled US Supreme Court in 1883.

In-fact, Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright (credited as Bill Clinton’s political mentor) and Robert Byrd (a former Kleagle for the Ku Klux Klan), filibustered against the bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote. Former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for the bill. When the bill finally came to a vote, the House of Reps passed the bill 289 to 124.80% of Republicans voted for the bill VS only 63% by Democrats. The Senate vote was 73 to 27 (21 Democrats voting no VS only 6 Republicans voting against). Simply put: Republicans are responsible for the bill being passed, not Democrats as they’d lead you to believe.

Equally important was the 1965 Voting Rights Act that abolished literacy tests and other tests used to prevent blacks from voting (a right granted by the 15th Amendment). With images of violence against civil rights protestors led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shaping the national debate, Democrats in Congress finally decided not to filibuster the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When the bill came up for a vote, both houses of Congress passed the bill. In the House of Representatives, 85% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats voted for the bill. In the Senate, 17 Democrats voted no, and only one Republican voted no.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is championed as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act as a senator along side Democrat Senator Al Gore Sr. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was also a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.

In a historic apology, issued unanimously on January 20, 2007 by the North Carolina Democratic Executive Committee, composed of over 700 party leaders and activists from 100 counties, resulted from the1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission Report of May 31, 2006. The report concluded that the Democrat Party was solely responsible for that 1898 murderous rampage against blacks.

“The Democrat Party was soley responsible” become the overarching theme.

The Democrats’ record regarding slavery is a record of abject shame and moral evil.

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

— Sen. Robert C. Byrd, honored Democrat in good standing.

And for Harry Reid to lecture Republicans, using slavery as an example, is an insult to history, in addition to generation after generation of Republicans trying to win first emancipation and then individual liberties for blacks against the bitter and steadfast opposition of the Democrat Party.

How dare he? How DARE he?

Harry Reid should not only apologize, he should frankly resign in disgrace. He won’t, only because the Democrat Party wallows in disgrace like pigs wallow in mud.

“With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell” (Aug. 14, 1787. ME 6:274)

Twelve years after Jefferson wrote these words, Napolean Bonaparte installed himself into power in a coup and began a totalitarian dictatorship. For the next sixteen years, he stirred constant war across Europe.

Sixty-one years after Jefferson wrote these words Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto, which stated, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

One hundred and twenty-seven years after Jefferson wrote these words the hatred and ugliness that had long festered in Europe erupted into the most vicious and murderous world war the world had ever known up to that time.

One hundred and thirty years after Jefferson wrote these words the revolution of class struggle described by Marx violently took over Russia and began to grow into the greatest oppressor of the human spirit the world has ever known. Over one hundred million human beings would die under the system of communism.

One hundred and thirty-five years after Jefferson wrote these words the dictator Benito Mussolini brought fascism into the world in Italy. And one hundred and forty-six years after Jefferson wrote these words Adolf Hitler degenerated fascism into its ultimate depths of evil that led to the Holocaust and the most costly and horrible war ever waged.

While European despots and totalitarian regimes seized weapons from the hands of the people and dominated their people with tyranny, America – like heaven in comparison – continued to grow as a free nation. Ultimately, it came to grips with the conflict that the founding fathers deliberately created, and faced its own tyranny in a costly Civil War that resulted in the freeing of the slaves.

“No slave shall go armed with a gun, or shall keep such weapons,” declared an 1854 law of North Carolina.

There were four million black slaves in 1861. How long would they have remained slaves had they possessed arms?

And thus without further ado we present the:

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” ~Thomas Jefferson

2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

14. What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand?

15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

16. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS ‘REFRESHER’ ON TO TEN FREE CITIZENS.

I think back to the country our founding fathers had emerged from. In Britain, it was illegal for a peasant to be armed. Revolt against the king – no matter how villainous or tyrannical he was – was absolutely impossible.

The founding fathers had an idea for a greater system of government; one which forced the government to respect the people.

I think back more recently to the many countries that America has liberated from tyrants – Iraq and Afghanistan included. The peoples we liberated were helpless to liberate themselves; they needed the strong and mighty hand of a free people who loved and valued freedom to do their liberating for them.

And America – with its passion for freedom and its hatred of tyranny espoused in the theme of sic semper tyrannis – has a proud and noble history of liberating peoples from the most evil dictators and tyrants the world has ever seen.

The 2nd Amendment was a reaction against tyranny in the aftermath of their conflict with a nation that offered its people no recourse against the tyranny of their government.

As we stare a government that is growing larger and ever larger, and more and ever more invasive, we keep our rights as a free people only by embracing the fundamental right to defend ourselves against tyranny from the wisest and noblest political leaders who ever lived.

Obama said that while he does not believe in gay marriage, he does think the state should allow civil unions that allow a same-sex couples to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other.

“If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans,” Obama said.

You know, I’ve read the Sermon on the Mount many times (found in Matthew, chapter 5). Somehow I’ve always missed the part where Jesus called for Gay civil unions. (If you find that part, please let me know). On the other hand, I immediately found the “obscure” passage in Romans referring to homosexuality quite relevant.

You don’t even have to read very far to find it. St. Paul begins by revealing the fact that God’s wrath falls on the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their unrighteousness suppress the plainly revealed truth (Romans 1:18-20) and instead foolishly exchange the truth of God for a lie (v. 21-22). And St. Paul says that because they deliberately suppress the truth, that God therefore gave such people over to the impure lusts of their hearts (24-32); such that men who are aware of God’s decrees not only practice such sin, but encourage others to practice it also. St. Paul refers to the sin of homosexuality again in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. He’s really quite clear.

The only thing that is “obscure” is Barack Obama.

Frankly, it’s too bad Barack Obama doesn’t read the book of Romans, and so clearly has so little respect for the Apostle Paul. Maybe he’d have a clue about the Christian faith. Sadly, Obama believes that Jeremiah Wright, Jim cone, and Louis Farrakan understand Christianity better than the man who “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6) with his explaining and defending the faith that Jesus Christ brought to the world and commissioned His apostles to teach.

But let me return to the teachings of Jesus, since Barack Obama has so little regard for the teachings of St. Paul.

Going back to the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 5, it is interesting that in the very same chapter that Jesus gives the Sermon on the Mount, He says, “Do you think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I came not to abolish, but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:17-19).

And what does the Law say about homosexuality? “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

It is an abomination because homosexuality perverts God’s natural created order. He who created man and woman in His own image (Gen 1:27) created woman as a suitable companion for man, and man said of the woman, “This is the bone of my bone and the flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). And God said that a man should leave his parents and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh (Gen 2:24). And God said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28, Gen 8:17).

Many today (who fall under the judgment and wrath of God according to Romans 1:32), teach that the ordinances against homosexuality no longer apply to us today. But Leviticus 18:22 should serve as a clear rejoinder, being sandwiched as it is between offering your children for child sacrifice (Lev 18:21) and bestiality (Lev 18:23). Of course, our mass culture of abortion and “anything goes” morality no longer really much cares what God has to say, does it?

When it comes to gay couples visiting one another in the hospital, or transfer property to one another, in Barack Obama’s straw man, I have no problem with either. But we don’t have to have “civil unions” to do either, do we? In our society, where lawyers are as plentiful as cockroaches and twice as nasty, one can arrange darn near anything. Surely, a process can be obtained by which homosexuals, senior citizens, friends, and spinster siblings can take advantage of partnerships that enable them to do find support, companionship, and benefit from one another without making such relationships tantamount to marriage!

Some things should remain undefiled and sacred. Marriage – which is under enough difficulty in our pluralistic religion-dismissing society – ought to be one of them.

But Barack Obama is not done with his analysis of the Bible. He continues in what he calls a “Call to Renewal Address“:

“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.”

Now, I suppose Obama believes he made a point, but how many Christians do you see today questioning whether or not they should own slaves, or whether eating shellfish is a sin against God? I personally have yet to encounter a single person so confused – at least until Barack Obama.

The dietary laws given by God were principally ordained as a means of separating the people of God from the pagan nations. It had to do with the holiness of God and the holiness that God called Israel to (Lev 11:44-45). It had to do with living under God’s Old Testament Covenant, which discriminated between that which was sacred, and that which was profane (i.e. of defiling oneself).

The children of Israel were set apart by God, and were called to be holy according to God’s holy ways. In order to be saved, one had to become a Jew (be circumsized, put oneself under the Covenant system). Jews and Gentiles were separated from one another, and from God.

But the prophets said that God would ordain a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).

The Book of Hebrews says, “When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear (Heb 8:13); and says of Jesus, “And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb 9:15); and also, “and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:14).

Christians are familiar with God’s introducing this principle to St. Peter in Acts chapter 10. A devout Gentile Roman officer named Cornelius has a vision that calls upon him to seek St. Peter (vs 5). But God must prepare Peter to come to Cornelius’ house and welcome this Gentile into God’s family. And so Peter likewise has a vision, in which a sheet comes down from heaven filled with food declared unclean, and a voice says, “Kill and eat.” And when Peter piously refuses to defile himself according to the Old Covenant, the voice from heaven says, “What God has made clean, do not call ‘profane'” (v. 15). It takes Peter three times to get the message: God is bringing Gentiles into the New Covenant. You do not have to abide by the Jewish dietary system, or be circumsized, or offer animal sacrifices. Faith in the sacrifice of the Christ of the New Covenant is the sole requirement. And Peter tells Cornelius of his lesson in Acts 10:34. And Cornelius is saved as the prototypical example of the first Gentile convert to Christianity.

Hebrews 10:4 tells us that it was never the blood of bulls that took away sins, but that the blood of animals – offered in sacrifice – had ever pointed the way to the ultimate once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. And that all who have ever been saved have been saved by Christ.

As for the issue of slavery, it must first be understood that – while not specifically overturning slavery – the Mosaic system provided pagan slaves specific rights granted by no other people in the world at the time, and it specifically banned slavery among Jews. A Jew could be indentured in servitude, but could not be “owned,” and his service could not be permanent.

But again, we merely have to turn to the Paul – whom Obama spurned – to see what God has to say about slavery in the New Covenant era. Read the Book of Philemon (why not? It’s really short!). Paul appeals to a Christian slave owner named Philemon to accept a runaway slave-turned convert named Onesimus back into his household as a free man – and not as a slave.

When slavery was overturned in Great Britain – and finally in the United States – the movements were championed by Christians appealing to the writings of St. Paul.

So even the most simple-minded of Christians have for two thousand years known the answer to these issues that Barack Obama continues to misunderstand!

Note how Obama abandons clear passages that condemn his views in favor of a radically subjective understanding of a passage that nowhere re-enforces them.

The Bible is not some byzantine codebook which must be read while constantly bearing in mind that we must never believe too deeply or accept to much. Barack Obama tells us to read the Bible (except for St. Paul’s writings, apparently), but not to trust it, lest one fall into the trap of saying that we mustn’t eat shellfish, or that we should re-institute slavery.

The man reveals himself to be the same spiritually ignorant – and biblically illiterate – man who embraced a hateful Marxist pastor as his spiritual mentor for 23 years.

So James Dobson is right; Barack Obama is just one more spiritually blind leader of the blind, blithely practicing “a confused theology.”

Having established this point, let me say that this issue does not just have to do with interpretations of the Bible, or with one’s (in Obama’s case terrible) choice of church. It has to do with worldview, and with decisions that would effect every single American for decades to come.

In terms of the choice of Justices for the Supreme Court, there are two sides: the originalist/strict constructionist judge, who is bound by the meaning and intent of the Constitution, and the judicial activist, who views the Constitution as “a living, breathing document subject to change.”

The problem is that the latter have imposed some of the worst legal decisions in American history, and America has had to pay terrible consequences for those decisions.

In the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, likely the worst decision ever, the Supreme Court ignored the overwhelmingly clear mandate of the Constitution in favor of a desired outcome. In writing his dissent to this despicable example of judicial tyranny, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote, “When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constituition is according to their own views of what it ought to mean” (Dred Scott 60 U.S. 621 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).

In the 1886 Plessy v. Fergusen decision, an activist Supreme Court mandated segregation and forced a private industry (the railroads) to separate individuals on account of race (“equal but separate”) in an abandonment of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. This terrible decision would be the law of the land for the next 58 years until finally reversed by the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. And even then, the Court failed to reject Plessy’s reasoning as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection, but instead – in still more activism – opened up a Pandora’s Box of sociological and psycho-analysis mumbo jumbo.

In the 1944 Korematsu v. United States decision, the activist Supreme Court upheld the executive orders of FDR requiring forced internment of some 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent in clear violation of the plain sense of the 5th Amendments prohibitions against deprivation of life liberty, or property without due process.

Activist judges have repeatedly justified slavery, segregation, and racism, abandoning the plain sense of the Constitution in order to impose their views upon the text.

This is the quintessential essence of the warning against judical activists and judicial activism, and liberals are ignoring it.

Justice Thurgood Marshall, who is the prototype of the liberal justice, said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

And Justice Marshall – precisely the sort of Justice that Barack Obama would affirm if elected president – said of the Constitution and of the men who framed it, “I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever “fixed” at the Philadelphia Convention… Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. to the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start… (Stuart Taylor, Jr., “Marshall Sounds Critical Note on Bicentenniel,” New York Times, May 7, 1987).

Mark Levin writes, “Marshall couldn’t have been more wrong, and couldn’t have had a weaker grasp of the Constitution. The Constitution established principles of governance. Discrimination, injustice, and inhumanity are not products of the Constitution. To the extent they exist, they result from man’s imperfection. Consequently, slavery exists today not in the United States, but in places like Sudan. Indeed, the evolution of American Society has only been possible because of the covenant the framers adopted, and the values, ideals, and rules that set forth that document” (Men in Black, p. 9).

In contrast, consider the view of Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

The gravest problem for America is that Barack Obama believes about the Constitution what he believes about the Bible. He despises the clear intent, and the clear meaning, and the strict interpreation according to fixed principles, in favor of the same sort of radical interpretation he gives to the Sermon on the Mount to justify gay civil unions – when such is nowhere in the Sermon, but only in Barack Obama’s warped mind.

Christians are people who have subjected themselves to the Person and character of God and His ways as revealed in His Word. They don’t usurp the authority of the Bible, such that they decide which parts to follow, and which parts to disregard. Whenever one does so, one places oneself as the ultimate authority over the Bible and the God whose Word it is. And in the same manner, Judges who do not place themselves under the abiding authority of the Constitution as framed and established by our founding fathers become guilty of imposing their will on the Constitution. And it is then that they become “black-robed masters.”

If the Constitution is not fixed and objective in its meaning, then by what principle do Justices decide? By their own subjective views, and nothing more.

Antonin Scalia has warned that if one is able to devise rights out of scratch, from such as the penumbras and emanations that liberal activist justices used to create the right of abortion, then one can literally impose anything one wants – just as Justice Curtis warned.

For example, Justice Anthony Kennedy relied upon his understanding of the European Convention on Human Rights – and not upon the Constitution – to rule in the 2003 Texas sodomy case Lawrence v. Texas. He wrote, “The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards [in a 1986 Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick] did not take into account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction” (Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2481 (2003)). Sandra Day O’Conner, John Paul Stephens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have also called for using international law to inform their conclusions. O’Conner said such should be “a persuasive authority in American courts.”

But why do they choose the “international laws” they do? Why not use Sharia law? Doesn’t that count as “other authorities pointing in an opposite direction”?

what would liberals do if some right-wing justice cited “the international law” of Sharia to limit and even completely overturn the rights of women (and I mean all their rights)? They would howl in outrage, even though they themselves established the precedent and have been arbitrarily imposing their will on the Constitution for over 60 years (in fact, for far longer), since President FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court in order to obtain the political decision he favored.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said “a too strict jurisprudence of the framers’ original intent seems too unworkable.” She takes the same view of the Constitution that Barack Obama takes of the Bible. But the reliance “of the framers’ original intent” seems plenty workable for justices such as William Rehnquist, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alitio; just as the “framers’ original intent” seems quite workable for millions of Christians regarding their Bible. It is only “unworkable” for someone who wants to impose their will upon the law rather than subject themselves under its authority and guidance.

Judicial activists are using international law as a salad bar, picking and choosing what they want and ignoring what they don’t care for. They are turning to international law because they do not wish to be limited or constrained by the Constitution – any more than Barack Obama doesn’t want to be constrained by Leviticus, or the Books of the Bible written by St. Paul, or any other authority that contradicts his subjective preferences.

Thus a Barack Obama will appoint federal judges who will – by the slimmest margin of a single vote – radically transform the morality and laws of a nation, such as they recently did in California, when four judges overturned the clear intent of over 60% of California voters in imposing their view of homosexual marriages upon society.

Barack Obama asked, “Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?”

It is Barack Obama – and not the Sermon on the Mount – that the Defense Department may not survive. The DoD has done fine with the latter; the real question at hand is whether it can survive the former. Barack Obama is a dangerous radical who has for years associated with dangerous radicals. His understanding of the world, of the faith he claims to profess, of the Bible he claims to honor, and of the Constitution he claims to seek to uphold, are dangerously flawed.